5 ms·

Don't do it. The biggest benefits employers give to you such as : steady income, predictable working conditions, career opportunities are basically a marketing

Don't do it. The biggest benefits employers give to you such as : steady income, predictable working conditions, career opportunities are basically a marketing trick. I had an employee contract after 6-7 years freelancing which I terminated 2 years ago and I needed more than half a year to recover. If I was you I will try to increase the price to your current clients to the point that you can do this in a sustainable manner

napworth 10y ago
Please could you elaborate a little more on how steady income is a marketing trick. Seem pretty set in stone to me. At a set date you will get paid a set month providing you turn up for work and do a good enough job to not get fired.
- white-flame 10y ago
  The question of whether or not that will continue from one month to the next is completely out of your hands as an employee. Regardless of how well do you do your job, if any of the billion layers above you bungle their budget, or their marketing, or there's merging or reshuffling between departments, or somebody just plain doesn't like you, your "steady income" can vanish in an instant. The company's health is not tied to your performance, and if the company's health wanes enough, you start getting squeezed as a bottom-runger before anybody at the top.
- eropple 10y ago
  You might get paid. I've had companies go broke on me. (As a consultant, I factor in non-paying clients to my rate. It's much harder to do that as an employee.) You might keep your job. Your definition of "good enough job" and your boss's might not be the same thing. Or your boss might lose an internal fight and your team could be laid off tomorrow. As a consultant, I always have at least two clients active at any given time that can pay my rent and monthly expenses. I work 24 to 30 hours a week. The "marketing trick" is that you are being hired in exactly the same way I am: tomorrow you may be gone, with no recourse, nothing. In a sane world you'd be compensated for that risk; I am, as I'm pricing that into my rates and making hay while the sun shines. :)
- jsprogrammer 10y ago
  You could arrange for the same while self-employed. One account could pay out to a spending account on regular intervals.
dwaltrip 10y ago
The only piece of evidence you've presented is a situation from your own career. Do you really believe you can generalize well enough from your personal situation to give such strongly worded & unconventional advice, especially to someone you know very little about? It may be the right choice for certain people at certain times, but it's definitely not a trivial decision.
- return0 10y ago
  OP asked for anecdotal advice anyway. Curious, what's the "conventional" advice in this situation?
  - dwaltrip 10y ago
    The person I replied to basically implied that working as an employee is falling prey to some sort of "scam". This is not a widely held view. I understand what they are getting at, and I'm actually sympathetic to the view point. But the reality is much more nuanced. Edit: To more explicitly answer your question, I would say that being self-employed is more difficult and demanding than working for someone else. Thus for many people it makes more sense to be an employee.
    - return0 10y ago
      > for many people it makes more sense to be an employee. Not for me though. I wonder if we could make a poll among people who have tried both.
      - dwaltrip 10y ago
        I'm similar -- I'll probably be self employed at some point. I highly value my autonomy. However, I suspect your poll would be biased towards those who prefer self-employment, as those who are certain it is not for them wouldn't bother trying it.

napworth 10y ago

Please could you elaborate a little more on how steady income is a marketing trick. Seem pretty set in stone to me. At a set date you will get paid a set month providing you turn up for work and do a good enough job to not get fired.

white-flame 10y ago
The question of whether or not that will continue from one month to the next is completely out of your hands as an employee. Regardless of how well do you do your job, if any of the billion layers above you bungle their budget, or their marketing, or there's merging or reshuffling between departments, or somebody just plain doesn't like you, your "steady income" can vanish in an instant. The company's health is not tied to your performance, and if the company's health wanes enough, you start getting squeezed as a bottom-runger before anybody at the top.
eropple 10y ago
You might get paid. I've had companies go broke on me. (As a consultant, I factor in non-paying clients to my rate. It's much harder to do that as an employee.) You might keep your job. Your definition of "good enough job" and your boss's might not be the same thing. Or your boss might lose an internal fight and your team could be laid off tomorrow. As a consultant, I always have at least two clients active at any given time that can pay my rent and monthly expenses. I work 24 to 30 hours a week. The "marketing trick" is that you are being hired in exactly the same way I am: tomorrow you may be gone, with no recourse, nothing. In a sane world you'd be compensated for that risk; I am, as I'm pricing that into my rates and making hay while the sun shines. :)
jsprogrammer 10y ago
You could arrange for the same while self-employed. One account could pay out to a spending account on regular intervals.

dwaltrip 10y ago

The only piece of evidence you've presented is a situation from your own career. Do you really believe you can generalize well enough from your personal situation to give such strongly worded & unconventional advice, especially to someone you know very little about? It may be the right choice for certain people at certain times, but it's definitely not a trivial decision.

return0 10y ago
OP asked for anecdotal advice anyway. Curious, what's the "conventional" advice in this situation?
- dwaltrip 10y ago
  The person I replied to basically implied that working as an employee is falling prey to some sort of "scam". This is not a widely held view. I understand what they are getting at, and I'm actually sympathetic to the view point. But the reality is much more nuanced. Edit: To more explicitly answer your question, I would say that being self-employed is more difficult and demanding than working for someone else. Thus for many people it makes more sense to be an employee.
  - return0 10y ago
    > for many people it makes more sense to be an employee. Not for me though. I wonder if we could make a poll among people who have tried both.
    - dwaltrip 10y ago
      I'm similar -- I'll probably be self employed at some point. I highly value my autonomy. However, I suspect your poll would be biased towards those who prefer self-employment, as those who are certain it is not for them wouldn't bother trying it.